Pyrrho

It is a thought experiment, not reality. The reason why vegetarians use examples like the thought experiment to which I originally referred is to show that people are often inconsistent. People often say intelligence or some other such thing is what matters, but they fail to believe their own story, as they tend to object to eating small children. When someone says some inconsistent things about their religion, many want to make the inconsistency clear with a thought experiment. This is doing the same kind of thing. The reality is, most people eat meat and think it is okay because that is what they were told as children, and it is what they did as children, and, like most religious people, they just go along with what they were told as children. The idea that many atheists have that breaking free from religion has somehow made them free and independent thinkers is manifestly absurd. Most constantly show that they simply go along with the herd, and never bother to think clearly and rationally about the other aspects of their lives. They usually don't bother with things like consistency. Otherwise, they would be consistent in matters such as the topic at hand. But the simple fact is, most people don't think about what they do most of their lives, and consequently they do things that do not fit in with any principle that they themselves find acceptable.

I have not been interested in telling people in this thread to stop eating meat; I have been interested in them being consistent in what they say and do. At the present moment, I have nothing to say to those who say that it is intelligence that matters, and who eat small children and severely mentally retarded people. But I do have a problem with someone who says that it is intelligence that matters, but object to eating small children and severely retarded people, when they have failed to offer any justification for this. Those who are inconsistent are necessarily wrong, no matter what the truth might be.

Pyrrho

I believe you are mistaken about how the expression "might makes right" is commonly used. It has been suggested, by certain philosophers, that there is no objective right and wrong, independent of people, and that those in power have 'made up' morality to help control the population (this is a somewhat oversimplification, but let us not quibble over the finer points). This idea goes back thousands of years; you can read about it in The Republic, by Plato, in which a character named Thrasymachus argues for such a position. (Plato brings up the idea as it was, evidently, a common enough belief in ancient Greece, and Plato is interested in showing that this idea is wrong.)

You are, of course, right that the stronger party can do as the stronger party wishes, and that is not something that people generally dispute. The question is, should the stronger party concern him or herself with ideas about "justice" and similar notions, or should the stronger simply do as he or she pleases?

In this thought experiment, we are not interested in the question of whether or not the aliens can eat us (that, in fact, is part of the setup of the thought experiment); we are interested in the question: Should they eat us? And if not, why not?



You are simply wrong in your assertions. First, people do eat whales, dolphins, and primates. You might want to do a little searching of the internet for more on this, or go to your local library, where a librarian might be able to point you in the right direction on this. Keep in mind that the United States does not contain the entire human population.

Second, primates are often used in medical experiments precisely because they more closely resemble us than other animals. Again, I suggest you do some research on your own; I don't want you to simply accuse me of finding biased web sites. You should have no trouble finding these things, but, again, a librarian may be able to help.

Third, many experiments are not particularly useful in the information that is learned. In other words, like the Nazis who experimented on humans, we do not bother with making all of our experiments such that we will actually learn something useful. We can also use the example of The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. People are very cruel to other people; why would you imagine that people would be kind to other animals?

Fourth, when animals are raised for food, the COST of dealing with the animals is the primary concern, not how humane the treatment is. Creating meat is a BUSINESS; it is not something designed to provide comfort for animals. See:

http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/animals.html

http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvega...terhouses.html

With all such links, there are many choices available, and I advise you to do some searching on your own for more information.



People often only recognize things when they are looking for them, and know what to look for. You state: "If chimps or dolphins were attempting to communicate with humans I am sure that we would recognize it." Do you have any evidence for this assertion, or is it simply an article of faith that you have?

When a dog is barking at you as you approach a house, do you think maybe the dog is trying to tell you something?

Most animals communicate with each other. Here is a link for some discussion of animals and language:

http://ar.vegnews.org/language.html



Do you seriously expect us to believe: "As a subordinate species to the Alpha Centaurians I would ACCEPT that their needs necessarily supersede our own needs and accept whatever consequences come with that..."? You would accept being tortured your whole life, if the aliens learned something that they deemed 'useful' from the process?

I strongly urge you to do some research on actual animal experiments, to find out for yourself what is done, and why it is done. And by all means, do not simply trust one source, but look for as many different sources of information as you can stand to look at.

thedigiMESS

Pyrrho wrote:
“I did not respond to any of the posts for several days, as I wanted to see how it would develop without me posting any responses.”

I have to say I am a bit put off by your tone. It seems that your only intention for beginning this thread was to proselytize, only rather than present your views in an upfront manner so that we could all respond accordingly you lured us in with this “thought experiment” and allowed us to lull ourselves into the belief that we were actually engaging in a genuine discussion, only to be ambushed and beat over the head with your militant philosophy.

Pyrrho wrote:
“What I am interested in is people being consistent. Do you regard it as okay to use small children and mentally retarded people for food, medical experiments, etc.?”

The quote pasted above appeared in at least six separate posts by you. If you are interested in following through with the open and honest exploration of sensitive issues that was originally promised by this thread when I first came across it then I welcome your comments. But, if you are so emotionally tied to your views that you are incapable of engaging in a thoughtful discussion without becoming abusive or pedantic then I just assume not carry on with this dialog.

In the interest of not veering off into ad hominem I will actually attempt to address some of the points you have raised. Let me advise, however, that I will not be browbeaten. To the issues…

Let’s start off with consistency since that is a major theme running through your posts and is clearly of paramount importance to you.

On consistency, Pyrrho wrote:
“They [atheists] usually don't bother with things like consistency. Otherwise, they would be consistent in matters such as the topic at hand.”

and:
“I have not been interested in telling people in this thread to stop eating meat; I have been interested in them being consistent in what they say and do.”

Naturally, in light of your passion for consistency I was a bit surprised that I was taken to task for generalizing when referring to humans.

thedigiMESS wrote:
“In reality we make every effort to identify sentient creatures (or those creatures who appear to be approaching some kind of sentience) and make very clear distinctions between the different kinds of uses that we will allow for different kinds of animals. We do not harvest primates, whales or dolphins for food, for instance, and I would not expect to be harvested for food by the Alpha Centaurians.”

to which Pyrrho responded:
“You are simply wrong in your assertions. First, people do eat whales, dolphins, and primates. You might want to do a little searching of the internet for more on this, or go to your local library, where a librarian might be able to point you in the right direction on this. Keep in mind that the United States does not contain the entire human population.”

Of course you are right. But I didn’t think that it would be practical to come up with a position that was reflective of (and accountable for) the treatment of animals by every individual and every culture that is, or ever has been, on the face of this earth. In fact I thought that my generalization was not only appropriate in the context of the thought experiment, but actually called for given its informal nature and the necessarily broad phrasing of the original challenge, i.e. “As a representative of the human race your task is… Does anyone care to make the case for why the Alpha Centaurians should NOT experiment upon human beings?”

Insisting that the United States does not contain the entire human population and that someone somewhere is eating monkeys or whales may all be true, but it unfairly holds me (or any respondent) to a level of accuracy not demanded of the petitioners and creates an uneven playing field where all participants are not subject to the same rules.

Pyrrho wrote:
“It is a thought experiment, not reality.”

Exactly! Unfortunately, you have been inconsistent with your application of that edict (and to your own advantage I might I add).

Pyrrho wrote:
“The question is, should the stronger party concern him or herself with ideas about ‘justice’ and similar notions, or should the stronger simply do as he or she pleases?”

Your question still drips of the innuendo that taints this entire thought experiment.

thedigiMESS wrote in a previous post:
“The human attitude towards animal research does not match the malevolent caricature of humans portrayed in the thought experiments.”

What is implied in your question is that humans have not concerned themselves with “justice and similar notions” in regards to the well being of animals. If I am mistaken and this is not in fact the implication of your question (or of this experiment) then it kind of makes this entire discussion superfluous. But, if I am correct, then I maintain that this characterization of humanity (contemporary Western civilization as measured by the laws on the books regarding the ethical treatment of animals) does not match reality.

Pyrrho wrote:
“…many experiments are not particularly useful in the information that is learned. In other words, like the Nazis who experimented on humans, we do not bother with making all of our experiments such that we will actually learn something useful.”

If you are advocating that there is room for improvement in the area of animal research and that we should always be striving for the most humane treatment of non-human subjects, then I agree with you and we are not alone.

Excerpt from the Federal Animal Welfare Act (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm):

The Congress further finds that--

(1) the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals;

(2) methods of testing that do not use animals are being and continue to be developed which are faster, less expensive, and more accurate than traditional animal experiments for some purposes and further opportunities exist for the development of these methods of testing;

(3) measures which eliminate or minimize the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals can result in more productive use of Federal funds; and

(4) measures which help meet the public concern for laboratory animal care and treatment are important in assuring that research will continue to progress.

Pyrrho wrote:
“…when animals are raised for food, the COST of dealing with the animals is the primary concern, not how humane the treatment is. Creating meat is a BUSINESS; it is not something designed to provide comfort for animals.”

Okay. But this is a non-sequitur, it begs the question. Just because creating meat is a business and the “primary concern” is the bottom line, it does not necessarily follow that animals will not be treated humanely. Unless of course we accept your (implied) assertion that humans are compassionless, cruel, cold blooded killers.

By the way, in case you haven’t come across it yet in your research (I didn’t see a link to it on the Animal Rights and Vegetarian Ethics site that you recommended), here is an excerpt from the Federal Humane Slaughter Act (http://www.wa.gov/agr/IBP/Federal%20...hter%20act.htm):

The Congress finds that the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock prevents needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement of products and economies in slaughtering operations; and produces other benefits for producers, processors, and consumers which tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods.

Pyrrho wrote:
“People often only recognize things when they are looking for them, and know what to look for. You state: ‘If chimps or dolphins were attempting to communicate with humans I am sure that we would recognize it.’ Do you have any evidence for this assertion, or is it simply an article of faith that you have?”

Actually I have confidence in the scientific method as a tool for distilling meaningful information from empirical data. Through careful observation and strict procedural protocols we are able to control for the tricks that we commonly play on ourselves. For instance, there is such a thing as “confirmation bias” where the observer only acknowledges the evidence in support of a favored hypothesis and disregards any evidence disputing it.

Pyrrho wrote:
“When a dog is barking at you as you approach a house, do you think maybe the dog is trying to tell you something?”

No. And most reasonable people wouldn’t. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests any reason to believe dogs are capable of the kind of abstract associations and precise definitions that are the benchmarks of human language. This is a mistake that you make often in your responses, whereby you fail to recognize the qualitative difference between simple communication, as happens between most animals, and the kind of complex reasoning that facilitates the complex languages used by humans.

Pyrrho wrote:
“Most animals communicate with each other. Here is a link for some discussion of animals and language: http://ar.vegnews.org/language.html”

Excerpt from the link:
“…we often judge the intelligence of animals such as dolphins based on how many human words they can learn and understand. However, dolphins have a very complex language which we have, so far, been completely unable to decipher. If dolphins were to apply this same to test to humans, then the dolphins would have to conclude that humans are complete idiots, since despite our best efforts, we have failed to learn even a single word that the dolphins are saying.”

Another less anthropomorphic way of looking at this is that humans have successfully taught dolphins many human words because we have words to begin with and the wherewithal to teach them, and dolphins have utterly failed to teach humans even a single word because… they can’t! As a side note, I wonder how a “language” which we have, so far, been completely unable to decipher has already been proclaimed “very complex”?

I did not find the information at that website to be very objective or helpful.

Pyrrho wrote:
“With all such links, there are many choices available, and I advise you to do some searching on your own for more information.”

Thank you. That is good advice.

Pyrrho wrote:
“…primates are often used in medical experiments precisely because they more closely resemble us than other animals. Again, I suggest you do some research on your own.”

Did I ever dispute this?

In a previous post thedigiMESS wrote:
“Humans do experiment on primates, and as such I would expect the Alpha Centaurians to put their needs ahead of the needs of humans and subject us to research of their own.”

Pyrrho wrote:
“Do you seriously expect us to believe: ‘As a subordinate species to the Alpha Centaurians I would ACCEPT that their needs necessarily supersede our own needs and accept whatever consequences come with that...’? You would accept being tortured your whole life, if the aliens learned something that they deemed 'useful' from the process?”

Yes. I was being consistent. I had already acknowledged that humans use primates in research. It follows then, applying the same logic, that if a species were to come along that was superior to humans they might very well decide that they would like to use humans in their research. I would not enjoy being a research subject, but that is not the point. I wouldn’t have a choice, just as the primates don’t. The best I could hope for would be humane treatment from my captors.

Pyrrho wrote:
“I have not been interested in telling people in this thread to stop eating meat; I have been interested in them being consistent in what they say and do. At the present moment, I have nothing to say to those who say that it is intelligence that matters, and who eat small children and severely mentally retarded people. But I do have a problem with someone who says that it is intelligence that matters, but object to eating small children and severely retarded people, when they have failed to offer any justification for this. Those who are inconsistent are necessarily wrong, no matter what the truth might be.”

I have not changed my ethical stance. I acknowledged that there are times where the needs of humans may supersede the needs of lower animals and we may use them in research and I acknowledged that a logical consequence of that position is that humans could one day be the subject of some other species’ scientific experiments. I have remained consistent.

The only inconsistency here is that you preemptively lambasted everyone in this thread for not eating small children and mentally retarded people, calling them hypocrites, even going so far as to claim that you would not have a problem with anyone honing up to such a heinous act because at least then they would be consistent. Then you became indignant at my assertion that I could live with the consequences of my position, as if it were hopelessly absurd, even though it was consistent.

You are having your small children and eating them too, I am afraid. You have not left any room for a position that you would find acceptable other than your own.

Pyrrho wrote:
“I strongly urge you to do some research on actual animal experiments, to find out for yourself what is done, and why it is done. And by all means, do not simply trust one source, but look for as many different sources of information as you can stand to look at.”

You are very good at doling out advice, so I hope that you will be able to take some. If you are truly interested in carrying on with a meaningful discussion I “strongly urge you” to adopt a less adversarial tone. Whatever substance there is in your message is obfuscated by your delivery and your arguments come off as disingenuous. No one wants to be talked down to or preached at.

Finally, for the last bit of advice I will defer to something that was written by you:
“Those who are inconsistent are necessarily wrong, no matter what the truth might be.”

You said a mouthful.

-thedigiMESS

Bill Snedden

Having read through most of this thread, and having been a participant in some of the previous "veggie vs. meat" threads (most of which deteriorated into flamewars), I should like to commend theDIGImess for a well-worded & rational response.

I do think, however, that we must all be careful not to let our emotions get the better of us. For some reason this topic elicits a more visceral response than most of the religious topics discussed here!

That said, as a previous participant in these discussions, I've thought long and hard about the topic. I've actually restricted my diet in the past, although not for moral reasons, and would have little difficulty returning to a vegetarian routine if I were to be convinced that there was a moral reason for adopting one.

My own position has been that it would be immoral to kill and eat any animal of a class advanced enough to contemplate its own fate and desire not to be killed and eaten. In short, it would seem to me to be immoral to kill and eat any animal of a class that possesses moral agency.

As it is, I see no evidence that any animal other than humans fits into this category. The closest I see to this in possibility would be certain other hominids and ocean-dwelling mammals like dolphins and whales. While I don't see conclusive evidence that those animals possess the ability for complex, abstract thought necessary to conceive of oneself as a moral agent, I would still acknowledge the possibility that we might not yet have detected it and refrain from killing and consuming them.

While children and the mentally defective or deficient may not themselves be capable of moral agency, they are neverthless in a class of animal that is (human) and therefore I would refrain from killing and eating them as well.

One possible objection to this schema that I can foresee would be "why a class of animal and not the animal itself?". I acknowledge that this is a potential weakness, but can only reply that it makes sense to me to approach the issue in this way.

Consider that it is problematic to determine with precision when a being might possibly possess moral agency. We know that we ourselves possess such a characteristic, but we can only judge whether or not other beings possess it to the extent that their actions allow us to do so. We know from our own experience that the normal course of development is most likely to render human children as functioning moral agents. We also have little enough knowledge about the functioning of the human brain to determine exactly what the status of moral agency might be in a defective one or at exactly what point a child might become one. Therefore, it seems to me that the most prudent approach, in order to decrease the probability of killing a being that is possibly a moral agent, is to broaden the category to include all members of a particular class in which at least one member is known to possess moral agency. Currently that class includes humans and might include other hominids and certain other mammals as I've mentioned.

I think that schema is fairly consistent, but would be interested to hear any objections or responses.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Hugo Holbling

It'll be my pleasure.

This strikes me as ad hoc and unconvincing, alas. You start with the decision not to eat based on possession of a certain property, but wind up reducing it to membership of a class - and that smacks of speciesism (assuming you know what that means, from animal rights literature).

In the case of children, it may be said that they are potential moral agents, but the mentally incapacitated cannot be saved from hungry amoralists in this fashion. Why should i tuck into an ostensibly highly-intelligent dolphin while passing up the chance of roast retard? To say that the latter is "human" is to beg the question and reminds any student of ideas of similar demarcations between races and sexes.

Here's hoping your response gives me something to chew on.

Feather

I don't regard ethics as essentially irrational. Rather, I regard presupposing ethics to be objective as essentially irrational.

The scenario as presented is a sort of Kantian Universalism using the vegan/non-vegan "debate" as a backdrop. Hence my statements--the scenario is absurd, because it presupposes an objective ethics as the outcome of any successful argument (for or against meat eating).

Bill Snedden

I do know what speciesism is, and while my schema may seem to "smack" of speciesism, I don't think it actually falls into that category.

It seems to me that "speciesism" is simply saying, "don't eat humans because they're human", or to rationalize not eating humans by citing some capacity that only they have or could have. So "speciesism" would then consist of characteristics or rules that are necessarily species-specific.

However, I don't think this applies to my schema. I've started with a capacity that can be demonstrated (in principle) by any creature possessing a brain. Therefore, my principle would not seem to be species-specific.

I further explained why, on pragmatic reasons, I would necessarily extend my recognition of "non-edibility" beyond individuals to a class based on the difficulties inherent in identifying the existence of the principle in question (moral agency) in individuals. As my extension thus necessarily includes members of other species, I don't see how this extension qualifies as species specific either.

I think it could be further defended, also pragmatically, by noting that I simply don't have time to examine every individual of every species with which I come into contact with the purpose of determining whether or not to eat them! I would starve to death. Therefore, when I encounter a member of a species that exhibits my characteristic, it's much easier simply to avoid eating any member of that species, lest I err and eat a moral agent by mistake.

As an aside, I wonder if speciesism could actually be defended on a purely pragmatic basis. From a societal/sociological standpoint, it simply isn't a good idea to kill and eat one's neighbors and their children. If nothing else, it tends to make neighborhood association meetings rather tense...

"Let's not bicker and argue about 'oo ate 'oo..."

Well, I realized after I finished my post and left my computer that I really should have noted that it was not actual moral agency, but rather the capacity or potential capacity for moral agency that is my principle. Children obviously possess this, as you note.

If you'll recall, I wouldn't eat dolphins either, so I would pass on both. I don't reject the "roast retard" (hyuk! ) because she's human, but rather because she belongs to a class of animals that possess the capacity for moral agency. I include both the mentally defective human and the dolphin in this category because I acknowledge, on a pragmatic level, that there are difficulties inherent in determining with precision the demarcation between "moral agent" and "non-moral agent". I would prefer to err on the side of caution in order to avoid inadvertently consuming my ethical brother.

Hehehe... I just hope it stays down!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. I LOVED the title of your last post. I almost lost my drink over the keyboard! :notworthy

Hugo Holbling

Agreed. I think the charge of speciesism falls foul of custom and convention, just as surely as critiques of relativism. Nevertheless, i couldn't let this thread pass without giving you the chance to bash it.

I duly note that the retard is female, according to your reading.

I'll press the point because it's fun debating with you, not because i think you're plain wrong. I think you place too much faith in our "capacity for moral agency": our retard may go nicely with pasta, but she neither possesses the capacity nor the potential for moral agency. Moreover, appealing to membership in a general class seems to me to involve a bold step. You said, earlier:

If you were specific in this assessment, i would have no qualms (for the purposes of this discussion, at any rate); but you generalize it by insisting on the phrase "of any class". This strikes me as quite a leap and not at all obvious. It is this class formation that seems ad hoc and designed rather to avoid the unpalatable (pardon the pun) conclusion that we may sauté a simpleton. Your pragmatic defence, so-called, is much better here, i'd say.

High praise indeed! I aim to please and find it hard to resist your musings.

Bill Snedden

Oh, relativism, you say? I was supposed to be bashing relativism? Well, why didn't you say so!? <grabs hammer and swings wildly>

Damn! I always knew someday that political correctness would turn and bite me in the ass!

Well, I prefer my retard with couscous or a nice rice pilaf, but we really should exchange recipes...

As a class, it is much easier to determine, empirically, that at least some members possess the ability. My justification behind extending the recognition to a class of animals rather than individuals was based on the difficulty of determining exactly when or whether a particular individual within that class possesses moral agency. As we can more easily determine the apparent capacity of a class, extending the recognition to the class rather than individuals allows us a greater probability of avoiding error.

However, I would take issue with your assertion that the "retard" with whose consumption you seem so obsessed possesses "neither...the capacity nor the potential for moral agency." I know several retarded adults who surely have both the capacity and the potential to act as moral agents. Of course, their agency is not as informed as ours nor their capacity as complete, but to suggest that they are completely incapable of understanding the difference between "right" and "wrong" would be an oversimplification.

Besides, as I mentioned, the line of demarcation between "non-moral agent" and "moral agent" is surely exceedingly fine. As I have already identified my goal to be inclusive rather than exclusive, why should I be required to pick a standard that excludes rather than includes?

Well, I'd say that my "class formation" is pragmatic. In a sense, it is designed to avoid the "saute the simpleton" conclusion. However, it's not because the simpleton might be a human, but rather due to the inherent difficulty of distinguishing what individuals within a class might really be simpletons (tia?) with regard to the capacity for moral reasoning.

Consider an analogy with the so-called "age of consent". Most if not all States have laws regarding when a minor enters into adulthood via an age of consent. Although we recognize that not every person develops at the same speed, the necessity of querying every individual to determine his/her developmental status WRT the capacity to form consent would be overwhelming. Does it occur at 16 years ? 17 years and 1 week? 18 years less two hours? The exact demarcation would be practically (if not actually) impossible to specify, even on an individual level. Therefore, we must out of necessity adopt a standard whereby we can make judgements regarding an individual's standing WRT the capacity to form consent. In so doing, we should attempt to set our standard such that it will allow us to err on the side of caution; to fail to attribute the capacity to form consent instead of the reverse in order to lessen the probability that we will assume consent where there is no real capacity to consent.

It seems to me that I'm doing essentially the same thing: designing my standard broad enough to decrease the probability of mistaking a moral agent for a non-moral agent. Given that as my goal, and seeing as how it's directly related to the principle I've outlined (don't kill and eat moral agents), I don't see it as ad-hoc.

Regards,

Bil Snedden

kctan

Can you name me some animals which smile at you & you ate it ? The scenario is about two communicable species interacting. This seems to point to a fact that the AC is capable of understanding us fully & we them which brings us on par at a certain level which animals doesn't share with us. A hungry lion won't have any qualms about eating you but you definitely might've some thoughts upon eating a lion. Can you see the difference ?

Plants bleed too when you cut it. It ain't stopping vegans from eating them. What I'm trying to put across is that when something is capable of communicating to you on a same level (yes your tomato or cow speaking to you in plain english), it'll definitely affect your appetite. Imagine a cannibal, if the cannibal's main course can talk & joke with him/her, do you think he/she will have second thoughts about eating you or not ?

It answered your question fully. There's no point in asking should or shouldn't when they want to eat us. It's freaking obvious isn't it ? Do preys' opinions count in how a predator will react ? Will your opinions swear hungry dogs from making you into their main course ? Ask yourself this first, what's keeping us from eating each other (cannibalism) ?